JG v Disclosure and Barring Service (Finding of Fact) [2026] UKUT 131 (AAC) (19 March 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal refused JG’s appeal and confirmed the Disclosure and Barring Service’s 27 April 2023 decision to place her on the Adults’ Barred List. It held that the DBS decision did not involve a mistake of fact on which it was based, and did not involve any material error of law.

Key points

• Parties: JG appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service over a barring decision under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
• Holding: appeal refused; DBS decision confirmed.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal found no mistake of fact and no material error of law in the DBS’s findings.
• Factual basis: DBS had found proved verbal and physical abuse of adult care-home residents BB, WM, LW and MC.
• Procedural note: the Tribunal maintained anonymity under a Rule 14 order for JG and other identified individuals.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none stated in the judgment; this is a safeguarding and barring case, not a sanctions or export-control matter.

Why it matters

The decision shows the Upper Tribunal upholding DBS safeguarding exclusions where the evidential and legal thresholds are met, which matters for regulated-care hiring and barring risk. It has no direct sanctions or export-control content, but it is relevant to broader national-security-style screening and trusted-person risk controls because it confirms the durability of public-protection barring decisions.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case underscores that challenges to DBS barring decisions must identify a real mistake of fact or material legal error; general disagreement with the safeguarding assessment is unlikely to succeed. Employers and regulated entities should treat adverse safeguarding findings as capable of supporting durable exclusion from adult and child-related work, and should preserve investigation records and witness statements because those materials can be central on appeal.